Evaluation of two perch deterrents for starlings, blackbirds and pigeons

Seamans, Thomas W.; Barras, Scott C.; Bernhardt, Glen E.

doi:10.1080/09670870601058890

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, few studies have quantified the efficacy that different control structures contribute to the overall decline in a pigeon population index. Instead control structures are recommended based upon informal reviews and incidental observations (Seamans et al 2007; Fukuda et al 2008), whereas our study found the different control structures to be significantly different in efficacy.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

“…Bird spikes were found to be the most successful in reducing the pigeon population (nearly 70 %) as pigeons were physically hindered from perching on the treated building. Seamans et al (2007) described similar findings at an airport; their research found the anti-perching spikes to be effective against preventing pigeons from perching on buildings. Based on biological principles, the spikes deny access to sites selected by pigeons (Harris and Davies 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Haag-Wackernagel and Geigenfeind (2008) suggest that through the restriction of entrance dimensions and the exaggeration of sloping surfaces, access prevention to ideal roosting and nesting sites can be achieved. Anti-perching devices such as sprung wires (Hutton 2005) and bird spikes (Seamans et al 2007), or the total exclusion through netting (Hutton and Dobson 1993) can be used to deter pigeons from making use of buildings in urban environments. Cost may be a limiting factor in their implementation, and the effectiveness of these barriers can depreciate over time if these devices are not maintained (Hutton 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Visual deterrents and physical barriers as non-lethal pigeon control on University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk campus

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study on a population of pigeons on the University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk campus was conducted over 2 years. Counts were conducted during a baseline year (March 2013–February 2014) to establish the pigeon population index inhabiting the campus buildings, and again in the management year (August 2014–August 2015) once Eagle Eyes™, Fire (Flash) Flags, bird spikes and a combination thereof were implemented on the buildings. An efficacy reduction percentage was determined for each of the control structures. The total pigeon index on the campus declined by 50 % once the control structures were implemented. Control structures; however, differed markedly in efficacy from each other. Whilst bird spikes indicated the highest efficacy at reducing the pigeon population index, seasonality also influenced the efficacy of the control structure. Quantified understanding of the efficacy of pigeon control measures allows urban management to make informed decisions about reducing pigeon populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual deterrents and physical barriers as non-lethal pigeon control on University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk campus

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different kinds of tactile or mechanical repellents had been used to deter pigeons (Haag-Wackernagel, 2000;Seamans et al, 2007;Williams & Corrigan, 1994). Chemical, acoustic, and visual repellents are known to be effective only for short time periods as pigeons habituate to them within a few days (Johnston & Janiga, 1995), while no deterring effect was observed when using an ultrasonic or repellent odour system (Haag-Wackernagel, 2000).…”

Section: Reduction Of Carrying Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feral Pigeons: Problems, Dynamics and Control Methods

Giunchi¹,

Albores‐Barajas²,

Baldaccini³

et al. 2012

Integrated Pest Management and Pest Control - Current and Future Tactics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One possible response is the large-scale killing of nuisance bird populations, an approach that is generally undesirable and often impractical (Feare 1984;Dolbeer 1986;Smith et al 1999;Blackwell et al 2003). Subsequently, various non-lethal techniques to control bird problems, not all effective, have been evaluated (Bomford and O'Brian 1990;Belant et al 1998;Blackwell et al 2002;Avery and Genchi 2004;Seamans et al 2007). Inevitably, however, the effectiveness of non-lethal avian deterrents, whether targeting use of structures, food resources, or open areas, requires integration of methods to enable pest management workers to capitalize on aspects of the ecology of the problem species (Dolbeer 1990;Clark 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Electric shock strips as bird deterrents: does experience count?

Seamans¹,

Blackwell²

2011

International Journal of Pest Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how birds detect and react to deterrent methods which are employed to protect structures is important both for the effective control of property damage, and to ensure that human health and safety are not compromised. One such device is a shock strip that causes slight pain to birds when they use a perch. Our aims were to determine: (1) the efficacy of a shock strip to flocks of Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater), and Rock Pigeons (Columba livia); (2) the length of time to extinction of effect; (3) whether members of a flock show a behavioural response to treatment; and (4) whether the birds habituate to the treatment. When activated, shock strips were effective in displacing birds from treated areas. Birds had to experience the treatment; there was no discernible indication of flock members reacting to affected birds. When strips were deactivated after an initial period of activation, birds required more than 2 hours to return to treated areas. No habituation was observed. Because birds had to experience the shock, reduced coverage of a structure or use of sham devices to lower costs is considered inadvisable.

show abstract

Evaluation of two perch deterrents for starlings, blackbirds and pigeons

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Visual deterrents and physical barriers as non-lethal pigeon control on University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk campus

Visual deterrents and physical barriers as non-lethal pigeon control on University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk campus

Feral Pigeons: Problems, Dynamics and Control Methods

Electric shock strips as bird deterrents: does experience count?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About